Supreme Court rules in favor of baker in same sex wedding cake case. (Part 2)

Discussion in 'Civil Rights' started by chris155au, Jul 21, 2018.

  1. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    17,057
    Likes Received:
    1,415
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
  2. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    17,057
    Likes Received:
    1,415
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    .
     
    Last edited: Jul 21, 2018
  3. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    17,057
    Likes Received:
    1,415
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I don't think you quite understand - there was NO evidence of INTENT TO DISCRIMINATE with the appellate court saying that “no such showing” of actual “animus” or intent to discriminate against persons in a protected class was even required!"

    Why are they an "evil?"

    How does the media misrepresent the laws?

    Why do you mean "influencing the application?"
     
    Last edited: Jul 21, 2018
  4. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    11,510
    Likes Received:
    1,959
    Trophy Points:
    113
    We're literally going in circles here. I'm not sure what will be achieved by going back over the same points. I'm not going to get dragged in to anything we've already gone over;

    That was one of the courts opinion of the evidence. If it were as clear cut as you imply, it wouldn't have gone further.

    Necessary evil doesn't mean literally evil, it's a turn of phrase. Nobody wants people arrested, fined or (potentially) locked up and nobody wants people prevented from living their lives the way they want for no reason. In a perfect world it wouldn't be necessary but this isn't a perfect world. Within our societies and communities we disagree on how things should be done and those disagreements need resolving one way or another.

    I was thinking of things like presenting anti-discrimination laws favouring particular groups, like homosexuals, ethnic minorities or Muslims when the reality of the laws are that they protect everyone by definition. They're applied more often for particular groups because they're much more commonly discriminated against.

    Judges and juries are human beings who living the in same world and consume the same media as the rest of us. There are checks and balances (we're discussing one of them here) and judges particularly will have a conscious intention not to be unduly influenced but nobody is perfect. Also in many places, especially the USA, there can be political bias and consideration of voter opinions involved. All of this can push in any direction.
     
    chris155au likes this.
  5. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    17,057
    Likes Received:
    1,415
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    What evidence? There weren't even any witnesses other than the bakers daughter! It was LITERALLY the couple's word against the baker's! The ONLY WAY to have acquired evidence in this case would've been to acquire proof of intent to discriminate! They simply ASSUMED his intent to discriminate! For someone as intelligent as you, I am frankly STUNNED that you're just not getting it at all!

    Was this baker not prevented from living his life the way he wanted?
     
    Last edited: Jul 22, 2018
  6. Nonsensei436

    Nonsensei436 Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2018
    Messages:
    1,450
    Likes Received:
    960
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Don’t need evidence. The baker made it clear he wouldn’t bake the cake for gay people because they are gay.

    And the baker wasn’t prevented from doing anything.
     
  7. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    17,057
    Likes Received:
    1,415
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    How?

    What do you mean?
     
  8. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    11,510
    Likes Received:
    1,959
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You're mixing up "evidence" and "proof". In this case, the actual sequence of events (which I don't believe was ever in dispute) and the words of the baker in his own defence are all relevant evidence. It can't definitively prove his intent either way which is why the commission, and latterly courts, needed to assess that evidence and reach a conclusion. Significantly, this applies equally to those who concluded his actions were discriminatory and to those who concluded they weren't.

    Yes, but in this specific aspect, that has potential to impact the lives of other people. Someone (or possibly both) is going to have to be restricted to an extent in such cases, unfortunate but literally unavoidable, hence "necessary evil".
     
    Last edited: Jul 22, 2018
  9. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    17,057
    Likes Received:
    1,415
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    So why should it be one over the other?
     
  10. Mr_Truth

    Mr_Truth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2012
    Messages:
    33,374
    Likes Received:
    36,810
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male




    A victory for right wing bigotry.
     
  11. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    11,510
    Likes Received:
    1,959
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's an entirely different question. A point I think I already made is that this isn't really about deciding on this specific case but establishing the laws and regulations that will work across all likely scenarios.
     
  12. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    17,057
    Likes Received:
    1,415
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Are you calling the Supreme Court right wing?
     
  13. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    17,057
    Likes Received:
    1,415
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You think that this Baker was rightly found guilty don’t you?
     
    Last edited: Jul 22, 2018
  14. Mr_Truth

    Mr_Truth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2012
    Messages:
    33,374
    Likes Received:
    36,810
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    of course it is

    everybody knows it
     
  15. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    11,510
    Likes Received:
    1,959
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Morally yes. I view treating same-sex marriage differently to mixed-sex marriage in the same way I’d view treating mixed-race marriage differently to same-race marriage.

    For what it’s worth, I also thought the initial penalty the baker received was excessive though. Principles are easy, practical reality is messy and difficult.
     
  16. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    17,057
    Likes Received:
    1,415
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    At what point did it become right wing?
     
  17. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    17,057
    Likes Received:
    1,415
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    What was the initial penalty?
     
  18. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    11,510
    Likes Received:
    1,959
    Trophy Points:
    113
    My mistake. I was thinking of a similar case where there was an order to pay significant damages. That didn’t happen in this case.
     
  19. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    17,057
    Likes Received:
    1,415
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    When we're talking about a guilty verdict, we're no longer talking strictly about morality. So try again and actually answer the question.
     
  20. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    11,510
    Likes Received:
    1,959
    Trophy Points:
    113
    We should never stop talking about morality. If the valid interpretation of the law creates an immoral result, the law is wrong and should be changed. I don’t claim to be any kind of legal expert, especially in US law, but my impression is that the combination of the various levels of law could be reasonable interpreted either way (hence the dispute) and there are some fundamental contradictions to address. It’s also perfectly possible that the Commission came to the right conclusion for the wrong reasons.

    I’ll give you a straight yes if it’ll make you happy, but I reserve the right to ignore any gotchas you try to launch based on it. ;)
     
  21. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    17,057
    Likes Received:
    1,415
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Either way? So if the baker had been found innocent, you would've called it "reasonable?"

    What do you mean?
     
  22. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    11,510
    Likes Received:
    1,959
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I’m saying a ruling could be made in favour the baker within the letter of the relevant laws and a ruling could be made against the baker within the letter of the relevant laws. It’s all a matter of interpretation (and, to be fair, conscious and subconscious socio-political bias). Nothing about this case (or many like it) is clear cut so there isn’t any simple and obvious legal answer.

    It’s perfectly possible the suggestion they didn’t treat him fairly due to his religion is valid and that would be wrong. Even if that was the case though, it’s still possible that a completely free and fair process by the commission would have ruled against the baker anyway. His being Christian doesn’t automatically make him guilty but equally his being Christian doesn’t automatically make him innocent.
     
    chris155au likes this.
  23. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    17,057
    Likes Received:
    1,415
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yes, but you believe that a ruling that is made against the baker is the right ruling in your opinion, right?

    Actually I think that they would've treated a secular person the exact same way other than talking down about Christianity obviously. This was less about being anti-Christian and more about being pro-gay rights.

    Yep, no question!
     
  24. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    11,510
    Likes Received:
    1,959
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The question of right or wrong needs definition and context. You’re not going to get a simple yes or no answer from me because I don’t believe there is one (and I’m not going to open myself to the gotcha that tends to follow on from demands for a simple answer to a complex question).

    I believe the actions of the baker were discriminatory and I don’t think that should happen. There is no perfect way to deal with that kind of conflict (even without the religious aspect) but the kind of anti-discrimination laws and regulations applied here are probably the least worst system. I think it is right for the application of those laws to require businesses not to act in the manner the baker did. I don’t think their religion should be a factor in that decision at all.
     
  25. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    17,057
    Likes Received:
    1,415
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The context is very simple. A scenario where a gay couple ask a service provider to service their homosexual wedding and the service provider very politely explains that they are not able to service such an event.

    Of course the actions of the baker were discriminatory! Just not on the basis of sexual orientation!

    So business people shouldn't be able to live their lives in the way that they want?
     

Share This Page